For what it's worth, Keir Starmer, ...

Whelans broken leg said:
Start by taking the lord title away.
Be more digging next week. Opposition won’t let this drop. And really don’t blame. Them. They loved it when they brought Boris down.
Watch your Back Kier. Your past may come back to haunt you.
Click to expand...
Tin hat donned ...

I'm not sure if taking away his title (regardless he shouldn't have been given it in the first place) is deserved ... for what? Being a friend of a bad un. Believing certain things about that friend?

He hasn't actually done anything wrong (or at least, not that we know about ... yet).

What would be the justification for taking it away?

(Can't believe I've just written all that, supporting Mandelson !)
 
daleks.at.the.monaco said:
If we accept the premise that all politicians are the same.
What is the point of getting rid of Starmer, we might as well allow him to have a go.
We gave the Tories 14 years to run the country down, let Labour have a go.
If they fail then Reform are a shoe in.
Click to expand...

‘if’. The last 15 months have been an unmitigated disaster. Unemployment up, illegal immigration up, growth non existent, cost of living up, welfare bill up, energy prices up, debt through the roof, economy knackered, I can’t think of anything significant that they’ve improved. They could get rid of ttk and quite frankly they should for his consistent lying if nothing else, but there is no Labour MP who would be a suitable replacement.
 
So the Times are reporting that the Security Services did provide the PM with a document outling the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein, including post conviction. However he ignored it. Is this considerable lack of judgement a resignation matter? Or will he trot out the report didn’t cross my desk excuse he’s fond of?
 
I presume you've also read that Mandelson said he hadn't stayed in Epstein's NY apartment, and never mentioned that he still supported him.

The only reason Starmer probably appointed Mandelson was to use his "skillset" (ie sleaziness) to snuggle up to Trump and his minions. Ironically, he was quite successful in this.

It's still not a great look, but let's make sure we consider all the facts.
 
moonay said:
I presume you've also read that Mandelson said he hadn't stayed in Epstein's NY apartment, and never mentioned that he still supported him.

The only reason Starmer probably appointed Mandelson was to use his "skillset" (ie sleaziness) to snuggle up to Trump and his minions. Ironically, he was quite successful in this.

It's still not a great look, but let's make sure we consider all the facts.
Click to expand...
It's still not a great look..... absolutely not & if as MiW says there was prior warning/ knowledge by KS which he chose to ignore then surely his position is untenable or maybe well stay in the post till Lammy gives him his full backing (aka Rayner / Mandelson)
 
jocklatic said:
It's still not a great look..... absolutely not & if as MiW says there was prior warning/ knowledge by KS which he chose to ignore then surely his position is untenable or maybe well stay in the post till Lammy gives him his full backing (aka Rayner / Mandelson)
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstood Jock. Yes, there was prior warning of previous involvement, but then Mandelson lied when telling Starmer about it.

Some of the appointments under Johnson (in particular Lebedev) were just as awful, but didn't end up unravelling like the Epstein files.

Sometimes, it's best to wait until the proper (full) story is out there ... let's face it, some thought Kirk's killer was on the left, but it turns out he's more right than Kirk himself.
 
moonay said:
I presume you've also read that Mandelson said he hadn't stayed in Epstein's NY apartment, and never mentioned that he still supported him.

The only reason Starmer probably appointed Mandelson was to use his "skillset" (ie sleaziness) to snuggle up to Trump and his minions. Ironically, he was quite successful in this.

It's still not a great look, but let's make sure we consider all the facts.
Click to expand...

Mandelson lied. Given his history that’s not surprising but he still chose to believe him. It’s no excuse for Starner, he was told of the history, he knew the optics of it all but chose to appoint him anyway. Now it’s blown up, he can’t really hide behind anything. His judgement is extremely flawed - he appointed a man who sympathises with the works most notorious paedophile Into the most important ambassadorial position we have. Doesn’t get much worse than that.
 
Made in Wigan said:
Mandelson lied. Given his history that’s not surprising but he still chose to believe him. It’s no excuse for Starner, he was told of the history, he knew the optics of it all but chose to appoint him anyway. Now it’s blown up, he can’t really hide behind anything. His judgement is extremely flawed - he appointed a man who sympathises with the works most notorious paedophile Into the most important ambassadorial position we have. Doesn’t get much worse than that.
Click to expand...
It gets a LOT worse than that ... it seems that "free thought" will be next on the agenda.

No thoughts on post #115?
 
moonay said:
It gets a LOT worse than that ... it seems that "free thought" will be next on the agenda.

No thoughts on post #115?
Click to expand...

I’ve just read it but can’t grasp your point. Mandelson is entitled to free thought but like anyone that may preclude him from certain roles if made public. Certainly a high profile government one in which it could make him a target for blackmail, let alone the sensitive of the topic.

I think this has moved on from him to Starmers judgement. Sacked from cabinet twice, known links to Epstein - he’s no one to blame but himself. Apparently government doesn’t do full vetting until after someone is appointed into this role. Seems totally backward to me and quite frankly why bother as it’s already too late. I doubt this will go away easily for him. I could rejoice at his peril but there is no one else suitable in Labour to take over so is little point.
 
I didn't think it was that difficult a point to grasp. (I presume you're talking about my post #115 here).

WBL wanted to take away his (undeserved) peerage ... for what reason? He's "done" nothing wrong ... even though he may well be a slimy turd.
 
Last edited:
moonay said:
I think you misunderstood Jock. Yes, there was prior warning of previous involvement, but then Mandelson lied when telling Starmer about it.

Some of the appointments under Johnson (in particular Lebedev) were just as awful, but didn't end up unravelling like the Epstein files.

Sometimes, it's best to wait until the proper (full) story is out there ... let's face it, some thought Kirk's killer was on the left, but it turns out he's more right than Kirk himself.
Click to expand...
I was, I think, trying to say that Starmer ignored advice from MI6 & others about the possible conflicts in appointing Mandelson as ambassador & that there's more to come out in the weeks coming.
With you on other appointments by BJ etc & it just confirms my mistrust & scepticism for all things political & politicians in general.
 
The spin is quite extraordinary. Govt wheeled out Jeremy Kyle this morning. When confronted with the allegation Starner had the emails before PMQs when he defended Mandelson he denied this saying he only ‘had extracts’ 😂 😂 Seriously are they really expecting people to believe this shit, it’s embarrassing.

Let’s not forget he hasn’t been sacked, just withdrawn. So still on the payroll for doing nowt. He won’t leave easily and suspect he’ll put pressure on Starmer, whose authority seems shot. Apparently he tried removing Milliband in the recent reshuffle and he wouldn’t go. Makes you wonder who is running this shitshow.
 
Made in Wigan said:
The spin is quite extraordinary. Govt wheeled out Jeremy Kyle this morning. When confronted with the allegation Starner had the emails before PMQs when he defended Mandelson he denied this saying he only ‘had extracts’ 😂 😂 Seriously are they really expecting people to believe this shit, it’s embarrassing.

Let’s not forget he hasn’t been sacked, just withdrawn. So still on the payroll for doing nowt. He won’t leave easily and suspect he’ll put pressure on Starmer, whose authority seems shot. Apparently he tried removing Milliband in the recent reshuffle and he wouldn’t go. Makes you wonder who is running this shitshow.
Click to expand...
Similarly on the Laura Kunsberg show this morning, Cabinet member Peter Kyle was brought out to try & defend Starmers decision to in backing Madelson at pmq's despite the emails out there. Think there's more to come from this but no doubt if anything untoward is uncovered it'll be spun even more by Labour lackeys desperate to defend the indefensible.
 
What could possibly go wrong this week. with Trump coming for tea.
The police bill for this and for the marches over the weekend.
Anyone’s guess. Be frightening. Cost.
Coppers be loving it all this overtime.
 
Another one bites the dust. Perhaps we need a new off topic thread to keep up with all the Labour departures.

Now his right hand man and chief strategist, who conned the public into voting for this shower of shite last year, has had to quit following the disclosure of some of some sexually explicit what’s app messages discussing Diane Abbott. I won’t share them as I’m about to have some tea shortly and don’t wish to feel nauseous.
 
In t’other news Pinocchio now claims he was aware of said Epstein emails last Wednesday when he defended him at PMQs - but did not ask about the contents.

And if you believe that claim you’ll believe anything.
 
Can I ask you a genuine question MiW ... if there was to be an election next month, who would your vote go to?

I ask because the Tory party seems to be losing more and more to Reform, but then again, Reform isn't "really" a party, it's a private company ... with so many unanswered questions about it ... not to say it's "leaders".
 
moonay said:
Can I ask you a genuine question MiW ... if there was to be an election next month, who would your vote go to?

I ask because the Tory party seems to be losing more and more to Reform, but then again, Reform isn't "really" a party, it's a private company ... with so many unanswered questions about it ... not to say it's "leaders".
Click to expand...

Assuming all parties on the ballot?

I’ve been clear that the country is in dire need of some strong medicine. Be that on the economy, net zero, illlegal migration, nhs funding, policing, and just overall common sense. Reform would seem the only ones willing to administer it and are talking the game the Conservatives should have put into practice when in office. However they aren’t in opposition and how they can effectively form a government from scratch on day one I’m not sure. At least Farage recognises this and is taking steps to address it. If satisfied in four years then probably Reform as it would be pointless to vote for more of the same. If the election was announced tomorrow then the only realistic option would be Conservative as I’d have more faith they could turn the economy around, to a degree, if nothing else.

As for Labour, they are literally bereft of talent. If Starner went I wouldn’t necessarily rejoice as there is literally no one competent to replace him.

How about you? Surely these last 15 months haven’t met expectations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.